Breast Implant Infections: Is Cefazolin Enough?

Division of Plastic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Impact Factor: 2.99). 09/2010; 126(3):779-85. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181e5f7ff
Source: PubMed


Bacterial infection is a well-known risk of breast implant surgery, occurring in 2.0 to 2.5 percent of cosmetic cases and up to 20 percent of reconstructive cases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a first-generation cephalosporin for perioperative prophylaxis; however, no guidelines exist for the empiric treatment of established breast implant infections. A recent increase in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections has prompted interest in using alternative antibiotics with anti-methicillin-resistant S. aureus activity for both prophylactic and empiric therapy. The goal of the present study was to assess the bacteriology and antibiotic susceptibility of breast implant-related infections at two tertiary care hospitals in the Texas Medical Center to determine whether a baseline for empiric therapy for breast implant infections could be established.
A retrospective review of patients who developed periprosthetic infections within 1 month after breast implant placement between 2001 and 2006 was completed. One hundred six patients with 116 infected breasts were identified. Patients were included in the study only if they had documented culture data.
Thirty-one breasts in 26 patients met inclusion criteria. Sixty-seven percent of the infected breasts had S. aureus infections; of these, 68 percent were methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections and 32 percent were methicillin-susceptible S. aureus infections. We noted Gram-negative rods and sterile cultures in 6 percent and 26 percent of breasts, respectively.
Because of the high incidence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections in breast implant recipients, we believe that choosing an antibiotic with anti-methicillin-resistant S. aureus activity is justified for empiric treatment of breast implant infections, until culture and sensitivity data, if obtained, become available.

19 Reads
  • Source
    • "Breast implant-associated bacterial infections occur in 2.0 to 2.5% of cosmetic cases and up to 20% of reconstructive cases [1]. Infections caused by mycobacteria are uncommon, but are being increasingly reported [2-5]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Bacterial infection is a well-known risk of breast implant surgery. It is typically caused by bacterial skin flora, specifically Staphylococcus aureus and the coagulase negative staphylococci. There have been infrequent reports of breast implant infection caused by the atypical mycobacteria, of which Mycobacterium canariasense not yet reported in the literature. Case presentation This report summarizes the case of a female patient who underwent mastectomy followed by bilateral breast augmentation and presented approximately three years later with clinical evidence of infected breast prosthesis by Mycobacterium canariasense. One year after thoroughly follow-up, appropriate antibiotherapy and the change of the infected prosthesis, the patient presented no signs of reinfection. Conclusion Our case demonstrates that Mycobacterium canariasense should be considered as a new potential cause of infected breast prosthesis.
    BMC Infectious Diseases 05/2014; 14(1):238. DOI:10.1186/1471-2334-14-238 · 2.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "A negative vacuum drain left during the surgery was removed at 4th or 5th postoperative day depending on the quantity and quality of the liquid drained. Antibiotics were used in each patient as follows: 1 g of cefazolin before surgery, 1 g of cefazolin before introducing the implants, and a final dose of cefaloxim 1 g 8 h after surgery [7, 8]. Also, mild thoracic compression with bandage was used to cover the surgical area. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Silicone gel-containing breast implants have been widely used for aesthetic and reconstructive mammoplasty. The development of a periprosthetic capsule is considered a local reparative process against the breast implant in which a variety of inflammatory cells may appear. Nevertheless, only few reports have evaluated the immunophenotypes of those inflammatory cells. Herein, we aim to provide more information in this regard evaluating 40 patients with breast implants. METHODS: We studied the immunophenotype of the inflammatory cells of capsular implants using antibodies against lymphocytes (CD3, CD4, CD8, CD20, CD45, and CD30) and histiocytes (CD68). Percentages of CD3 and CD20 positive cells were compared using the unpaired Student's t test. Fisher's test was also used to compare Baker grades by implant type, implant profile, and location and the presence of inflammatory cells by implant type. RESULTS: The associations between Baker grades and implant type and location were statistically nonsignificant (p = 0.42 in both cases). However, the use of low profile implants was significantly associated (p = 0.002) with a higher proportion of Baker grades 3 and 4. We found evidence of inflammation in 92.5 % of all implant capsules, with a statistically significant (p = 0.036) higher proportion in textured breast implants. T cells predominated over B cells. Textured implants elicited a more marked response to T cells than smooth implants, with a similar proportion of helper and cytotoxic T cells. Textured implants showed statistically significant higher percentages of CD3 positive cells than smooth implants. Percentages of CD20 positive cells were similar in textured and smooth implants. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that textured breast implants might induce a stronger local T cell immune response. Our findings could shed some light to understand the association of silicone breast implants and some cases of anaplastic large cell lymphomas. Level of Evidence: Level III, prognostic study.
    Chirurgia Plastica 09/2012; 35(9):647-651. DOI:10.1007/s00238-012-0728-9
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Any complication after breast augmentation can raise fear and concern in the patient. It can project the lack of an expected or desired result because a complication could eventually lead to the temporary or permanent removal of the implant. Although a complication can be considered a professional failure, it provides opportunity for further investigation exploring the reasons, establishing adequate treatment, and most importantly, suggesting prevention methods. Pajkos et al. examined the reasons behind the late complication of fluid collection in the proximity of breast implant devices experienced by a group of 568 women undergoing breast augmentation surgery over a period of 13 years. The history of six patients, all with acute swelling and fluid formation in the periprosthetic space, was reviewed. The acute inflammation was followed by bacterial or viral infection in all six patients. Two of the six patients were treated conservatively. The remaining four cases necessitated surgical intervention. All the patients had intensive capsule formation. In two cases, a microbiologic examination showed a Staphylococcus epidermidis
    Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 10/2010; 35(3):315-8. DOI:10.1007/s00266-010-9608-5 · 0.96 Impact Factor
Show more